The Text of the New Testament

(Adapted from Evidence for the Bible by Elgin L.
Hushbeck, Jr.)

When we examine the New Testament, we find the evidence for
it to be even stronger than that for the Old Testament. The oldest complete New
Testament is the Codex Vaticanus. Located in the Vatican, it is believed to
have been copied around A.D. 325. This shows that only a few hundred years
after the books of the New Testament were written, they were already being
collected as a complete unit. If we look at portions of the New Testament, we
move even closer to the originals.

Most scholars beleive
that the oldest fragment of the New Testament we have is the John Rylands
Manuscript, which contains a portion of the book of John (18:31-33, 37-38).
This fragment dates from about A.D. 125-130, (1) which
is less than 40 years after John wrote it. (2) Other
early manuscripts of the Bible continue to be found.

In 1972, the
papyrologist Jose O’Callaghan claimed that a small manuscript fragment found in
among the Dead Sea Scrolls(called 7Q5) was actually from the Gospel of Mark
(Mark 6:52-53) and was copied somewhere between A.D. 50 and A.D. 68 when
thecaves were sealed. If correct, this would be truly astounding sincethe range of dates for Mark run from the mid 40s to the mid 70,with most scholars dating Mark during the 60s. As such,O’Callaghan's identification caused a lot of controversy, and in
fact was largely rejected by New Testament scholars who
claimed thiswas just too early and that the manuscript
fragment was too smallto make such identification
certain.

The case for the identification of 7Q5 with Mark was strengthened recently when the fragment was examined usingspecial equipment. Much of the dispute turns on
the identification of
one of the letters which has
been damaged. If the disputed
letterwas the
Greek letter nu (N) then the text would be consistent with the text of Mark.
The problem is that much of the right handportion of the letter is missing and to some it looks like an itoa (I),which would not match the text of Mark. Recent examinations using advance technology have shown that the disputed letter is infact a nu and thus is consistent with the text of Mark. As a result,among papyrologists
(those specifically trained in this area) there is growing support for
O’Callaghan’s identification.(3)

In late 1994, Carsten Thiede, Director of the
Institute for BasicEpistemological Research in Paderborn, Germany,
announced astartling discovery about a different manuscript. Thiede dated theMagdalen
papyrus, which contain portions of the Gospel ofMatthew
(26:7-8, 10, 14-15, 22-23, 31), to A.D. 66 or slightlyearlier.(4) Again,
as with O’Callaghan’s identification of 7Q5 with Mark, this has caused
considerable controversy for the range of dates given for Matthew are from the
40s to 90s with most liberal scholars dating Matthew in the 70s and most
conservative scholars dating it in the 60s.

One of the
significant aspects of the Magdalen fragments is that they are from a codex
(similar to a book) and not from a scroll This indicates that these are at
least second generation copies and gives us
an indication of how rapidly the Gospels were copied andspread throughout the Roman world, which as we shall see shortlyis important for establishing their reliability.

Whether or not the work of O’Callaghan, Thiede
and otherscholars who support the early date of these
and other manuscripts
stands up to the examination of other scholars, what is clear is thatthe textual evidence for the New Testament is
far and awaystronger than for any other ancient work. By
1989, scholars hadcatalogued 54883F (5) early
Greek manuscript portions of the New Testament. These manuscripts, along with
about 20,000 translations, which include over 10,000 copies of the Latin
Vulgate, provide a truly phenomenal record of the text of the New Testament. (6)

As a comparison, let
us look at a few other ancient works. About 100 years before the New Testament
was written, Julius Caesar wrote his account of the Gaulic Wars. Of this work
we have about 10 copies, made about 1000 years after Caesar wrote them. We have
about 7 copies of the works of Plato that date approximately 1200 years after
Plato died. For any single work of Aristotle we have about 50 copies, written
about 1400 years after his death.(7) Clearly
the text of the New Testament is much more established than any of these works.
For most of the ancient writers, we have tens of copies made a thousand years
after they were written. For the New Testament, we have thousands of copies,
beginning tens of years after they were written.

Besides the thousands of early manuscripts of
the New Testament,
we also have another way by which we can confirm these texts. The early church
fathers wrote frequently, and when they wrote they often quoted Scripture. From
these early quotations, nearly the entire New Testament can be reconstructed. These
quotes act as a second witness for the text.

This is
why it can be stated that the claims of those who saythat the Bible has been rewritten or edited by this or that churchcouncil are simply not supported by the evidence. While thechurch councils began in the fourth century, we have copies of theBible and the writings of the church fathers beginning no later
thanthe early part of the second century. If any
changes had been madeat the councils, they would
be very easy to find. We would onlyhave to compare the copies of
the Bible made before the councils,to the copies made after, and
any changes would instantly becomeapparent. There are no signs
that the text of the New Testamentwas altered, much less
altered so as to remove the teaching ofreincarnation or any other
doctrines.

Still
some point to the lack of the
originals and the gap,however small, between the
originals and the earliest manuscriptsas evidence of unreliability.
It is claimed that without the originals,we really can never be sure
the text was not changed. The problemwith such claims is that we
do not have just a single line ofmanuscripts but many parallel
lines, each confirming the others.

The figure shows an
example of this. From a single original,many copies were made and
distributed. From the first generationcopies, second, third and
forth generation manuscripts were made.For this example, say that
many years later, only three manuscriptsremain (mss #1, #2, &
#3), all fourth generation copies. Does thismean we
cannot be sure of the text before the fourth generation?Not at all. By comparing these manuscripts, we can determine howaccurately the text was copied.

When two manuscripts agree, the reading they
have in commonmust be earlier than the manuscripts
themselves. In our example,when mss #2 and #3 agreement,
they reflect a reading found
in thefirst generation. When all three agree they reflect the reading
foundin the original. This example demonstrates a very
important concept: there is a difference
between the date of a manuscript and the date of a reading found in the manuscript.
That a particular manuscript was written in the second century does not mean
that the text it contains is from the second century. This difference between
the date of the reading and the date of the manuscript is very important in bridging the gap.

The books of the New Testament were copied and
distributedwidely during the lifetime of the apostles. Any
early changes would have been resisted by them. After their
death, there werealready copies spread throughout the Roman
world. To havechanged them all so as to completely eliminate
the original readings would have required a tremendous
effort. As a result,those who claim that text has
been change must face a majorproblem with their theory.

To
successfully change all the texts of the Bible would haverequired a large organized effort, yet no such organization existedin the early church. By the time anything approaching the level oforganization that would have been required was reached, this would have been well past
the time of what are now our earliest manuscripts. Even if such an organized
effort had been able to change the Bible used at the
time, they could not have changed manuscripts that had already been lost, but
would be rediscovered in the last two centuries. As such these early
manuscripts showthat no such editing occurred.

One final problem is the fact that early
Christians did considerthe Word
of God to be important and many died to protect it. Forexample, in 303 A.D. the Roman Emperor Diocletian ordered that allChristian scripture be
destroyed. While
some Christians compliedwith the Emperor’s order, many suffered torture and martyrdom toprotect God’s word. After
Diocletian’s persecution failed, the reaction
against those Christians
who had turned over scripture
tothe Romans from other Christians was so strong
that it caused a controversy within the
church for many years after. In fact it was sostrong
that a new word entered into our vocabulary. Those whoturn over the word of God were called “those who delivered”
which in Latin is traditores and has come into English as traitors.

The idea that roughly twenty years after the
persecution ofDiocletian and at the same time that the church was struggling
to deal with the traditores, the
church councils would have rewrittenthe Bible without leaving any
trace and without anyone
complaining is simply
impossible. The simple fact is that therewere too many Christians
throughout the world who where willingto suffer and even die to protect Scripture, as many had
so recentlydone.

When we consider the thousands of manuscripts
andtranslations that have survived from these
various sections of theearly church, we can be sure
the texts were copied accuratelyduring the very small gap that remains between the originals
and the earliest
manuscripts.

This is
not to say that the Bible we have today is exactly thesame as when it was written down by the apostles and prophets. Insome places there are still some questions concerning the text.These questions arise when there are minor differences between thevarious ancient manuscripts, and scholars are unsure as to whichone is actually correct.

Scholars who evaluate the thousands of
manuscripts,translations, and quotations and from them
attempt to assemble theoriginal text are called
textual critics. For the vast majority of theBible
(probably over 95 percent) there is no doubt concerning theancient reading of the text. In those sections about which there isstill some question, the differences found among the variousmanuscripts are minor and have no effect on the teachings of thechurch, regardless of which reading is correct.

Even here there is no secrecy or attempt to
deceive. Bothmajor Greek texts of the New Testament give the
reader whatscholars believe is the original text of the
New Testament.(8)Interestingly, even though these Greek New Testaments wereprepared by different groups of scholars, the text of the New
Testament is identical. In addition to the
text they also include allof the major variations, a
listing of the manuscripts in which thesevariations are found, plus
the church fathers who
quote them. Thisinformation is accessible to even those with only a limitedknowledge of New Testament Greek.

Of course, when a translation is
done, a choice must be madebetween
the different (or variant) readings. Because of this, manymodern translations include the alternative readings in a footnote.An example of this can be seen in Matthew 15:5-6. The NewInternational Version translates this verse as: (Note: Superscriptnumbers represent the verse numbers.)

5But you say that if a man says to his father or mother,
"Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to
God," 6he is not to "honor his father" with it.

The New
International Version also includes the followingfootnote
for verse 6, which states that some manuscripts read: “he is not to ‘honor his father or his mother’ with it.” As you can see,while the
reading is different, it makes no difference to the meaningof the passage as a whole, since the mother had already beenmentioned in verse 5.

If you suspect that I have chosen a simple
passage as anexample, it is easy enough to check this for yourself.
All you needdo is to look through one of the many modern
translations thatinclude the variant readings and compare these
to the text. It hasbeen my experience that the vast majority of
these variant readingsmake no difference at all,
much less a difference that would affectthe teachings of the Bible.

In a very small number of cases the difference
is significantenough to change the meaning of the passage.
Perhaps the mostwell known example of this is 1 John 5:7-8. The
New InternationalVersion translates these verses as: (Note:
Superscript numbersrepresent the verse numbers.)

7For there are three that testify: 8the
Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

The
accompanying footnote points out that in a few very lateGreek manuscripts (sixteenth century or later) the verse reads asfollows:

7For there are three that testify in heaven: The
Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three that
testify on earth: 8the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are
in agreement. (Added text is in Italics)

This is
a significant change.
Still the difference should not be exaggerated. The additional words are a
clear reference to the Trinity,
but the shorter
reading cannot be taken as a denial of the Trinity. Rather it simply
lacks a reference to it. More importantly, regardless of
which reading was the original (and it is certainly the shorter reading) this variant does not alter the overall
teachings ofthe Bible in any way. The doctrine of the Trinity is taughtthroughout the New Testament, and to some extent in the OldTestament, and does not depend on a single verse. No majorteaching of the church depends on a single verse, much less a versein which there is a variant reading.

The recent discoveries of archaeology, and the
work of textualcritics, have shown that the text of the Bible
is thoroughly reliable.They have shown that, despite
claims to the contrary, the text of theBible has not been changed or
altered so as to distort the originalmessage. While the ancient
manuscripts did reveal a limitednumber of minor problems,
which have since been corrected, theymainly have served to confirm
the accuracy of the overall text. Asa result, the text of the New
Testament we have today is, for allpractical purposes, the same
as it was when it was written by theapostles.

Footnotes

2 This is based on the traditional date for John of A.D.
90 - 100. A few scholars are now suggesting that John may have been written as early as
A.D. 55, which would be about 70 year before the John Rylands Manuscript was made, and
only about 25 years after the resurrection of Jesus.

3 For a discussion of the issues surrounding these texts
and the arguments for an early date see: Cartsen Thiede & Matthew D’Ancona, Eyewitness
to Jesus (New York: Doubleday, 1996) For the arguments against the early date see: G.
Stanton, Gospel Truth? New Light on Jesus and the Gospels (London, 1995)

5 Some manuscript portions are separate fragments from
the same manuscript that were acquired at different times. As such, this number is not the
total number of manuscripts. While the exact number of separate manuscripts is not known
for certain, it is around 5000. Bruce K Waltke, The Textual Criticism of the Old
Testament in The Expositor's Bible Commentary Vol. 1 ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand
Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979) p. 218